That’s my point. There’s really no yardstick with which to measure his presidency as radical, since the United States as a political entity was brand new. Washington may have been radical for his role as a General in the Revolution, and he may have been President, but I don’t think that the Washington Presidency can really be considered “radical”.
I guess the term limits precedent was pretty important, but other than that I don’t see how he bucked the (newly established) order.
This gets my vote.
Hell, the guy invented the White House Press Room, which, I think, would turn out to be one of the most influential Presidential decisions of all time.
He did things no American president before him had ever done.
Strongly disagree. While he certainly fought the war, his long term plans always involved having England as our primary trading partner, while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored France. Jefferson was far more radical than Washington.
Another sign of the apocalypse. Largely, I agree, and would add Jefferson, Lyndon Johnson and perhaps Lincoln for his badly hidden abolitionist agenda. One I agree with, mind you, but radical change at the time along with his vastly increasing the power of the federal government during and after as a consequence of his terms.
Obama is not even slightly radical judged by the standards of his predecessors. He is almost slavishly not making waves. He very nearly let health care reform die until Pelosi told him the facts of life.
I think that Gingrich is a bald faced liar who is being a demagogue for the thrill of it. Even Republicans would not elect someone as scummy in their personal life as Newt the Poot.
Only by his political opponents. Once they overcame their hysteria and realized he was an Establishment Guy the wind went out of the sails of Federalism and the politics began to become less vitriolic. I expect this was the example President Obama was hoping to emulate.
The only president who WASN"T completely an Establishment Guy was Jackson. He snubbed his nose at them when he let the Bank of America lose its charter. For better or for worse, and say what you want about him (and I’ve said plenty), this action was the most radical departure from the elite consensus.
“Hidden”? The Republican Party’s main stance was “No slavery in the territories.” They basically didn’t run in the South.
[nitpick] The Louisiana Purchase doubled the territory of the United States. [/nitpick]
I’ll go with FDR. For good or bad, he changed forever the role of the national government in this country.
William Harrison - died after only one month. Pretty radical…
Can’t overlook Bush the second. He stuck us with a right wing Supreme Court and gave corporations more power than anyone could imagine. He killed regulation and started wars with no funding ,destroying a surplus and bankrupting the country.
Don’t trample my puns with your facts, please.
First response is the most obvious. But FDR was perhaps more radical than Lincoln in some way.
FDR, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, & TR were all somewhat radical. Jefferson & John Adams were more radical than the norm, I suppose. Obama’s not really radical–in a revolutionary sense–at all.
Er, I think the Modoc were nearly exterminated in the 1870’s. The Indian Wars of the 1870’s were explicitly exterminatory, whereas the Cherokee were just repatriated. Doesn’t make the Trail of Tears right, just not the closest we came to genocide.
That is not even remotely true. He’s a shameless liar, but he’s not remotely stupid.
Anyway, from his POV Obama is unparalleled in his radicialism, what with not staying in his place and shining shoes for a living and all.
You say that in jest, but I wonder what the chances would be of Obama being where he is now had he been raised a bi-racial child in (for instance) 1960s Alabama.
I honestly don’t understand the connection between your post and mine, Frank. Can you please explain?
Anyway, I wasn’t jesting about Gingrinch, though I was speaking in hyperbole. I can’t speak to his personal feelings, but I believe ins assertions of Obama being radical are, at the very least, a coded appeal to some elements of the conservative base.
(I’ve extended the first quote for my own purposes. Krokodil responded to a truncated version.)
There was a difference between being antislavery and being an abolitionist. Abolitionists wanted to take positive steps to end slavery. Lincoln rejected this path instead favoring containing slavery where it already existed in the (common at the time) belief that this would lead to its “natural” extinction. See Foner’s Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War. Lincoln was a moderate. Not that this comforted proslavery forces in the slightest.
I would also argue that the outcomes of the events that occur during someone’s presidency aren’t the way to gauge the radicalness of that president. Yes things changed under Lincoln, FDR, and (to a much lesser extent) LBJ but that does not mean that their views and actions were outside the norm. Believing that slavery should and would “naturally” come to an end was common in antebellum America. It wasn’t even unknown in the South before the 1830s when holding such views became a virtual death sentence. See American Mobbing, 1828-1861: Toward Civil War by David Grimsted. That America changed greatly does not make Lincoln a radical.
The same goes for FDR. The elite consensus fractured in the face of the Great Depression and there were plenty of elites who agreed with FDR that major structural changes were needed to prevent a slide into Socialism. See Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Patrician as Opportunist in Hofstadter’s The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made it. I’m less familiar with Johnson but see no reason not to include him along with the rest.
Prohibiting the spread and abolition are not nearly the same thing. Lincoln denied prior to his election that he was in favor of abolition, and did and said nothing until the emancipation proclamation, which still was not abolition in the north, but it was in the rebelling states. Lincoln went to great pains to pretend to not be an abolitionist prior to his election. The South wasn’t fooled. In his heart and to himself he was, in my opinion, the most effective abolitionist the country ever saw. But he was a politician and gasp, lied, about his motives. Neither his supporters or detractors bought into his lie, but enough people who didn’t care did to get him elected. I don’t buy the Honest Abe myth, I see him as a very skilled politician whose aim was to destroy slavery at all costs.
How he did all of this and the other things in his life without the access to a library as good as Jefferson’s is almost unbelievable to me.
I think it a diservice to abolitionists to include Lincoln in their midst. Being an abolitionist back then was like being an anarchist or socialist is today. There was an economic, social, and on occasion a physical price to pay. Lincoln never carried that water. Whatever his true feelings he maintained a “respectable” demeanor which kept his political ambitions alive.
Given how frequently and ignorantly and self-servingly the label “socialist” gets slapped on things the speaker disagrees with these days, were politicians of the 19th century calling their opponents “abolitionist” at every opportunity, just to score cheap political points?